Selling strategy and strategic thinking to a trial-and-error management team can make perfect sense. In fact, it not only makes perfect sense but it is a complementary antidote to inevitable blind spots of the most intuitive of people. Properly executed, a thorough strategy process balances perspectives to reduce the possibility of missing something important. Indeed, systematically eliminating unknowns (or, better, converting assumptions to facts) is an important cornerstone to discovery driven growth.

Eskimos, as the saying implies, are not the best customers for snow makers. Obviously, given where they live, snow and ice exist in abundance. Producing something that is already free seems unlikely to induce someone to make an incremental investment. Yet, an Eskimo depends on the ice and snow for traditional igloos and, perhaps more importantly, for maintaining an environment that supports their lifestyle. It is a hedge, maybe, to pay for something that often appears unneeded. However, the moment the temperatures rise, that hedge is all that stands between disaster and survival.

Strategy is similar. Most management teams get by on undirected intuition. They already “own” this and everyone has an opinion to assert. Sometimes, it works spectacularly well. After all, business owners and senior managers tend to be smart, experienced people. Other times, increased competition or environmental changes expose a lack of strategic problem solving. When that happens, business results suffer.

Recently, with Don Springer of the The Colton Group, I completed a survey of 22 business leaders of small-to-medium size businesses. Most of these businesses involve technology products and services. The demographics from the survey are shown in the following graphics.

For people with a chronic and serious illness, there often is a periodic set of tests used to assess whether or not their disease has progressed. For instance, for people with cancer, many “enjoy” CT scans, MRI’s and blood tests regularly to determine if the cancer has returned, grown or spread. The routine of getting the tests done, waiting for specialists to interpret the results and talking with the doctor is an anxiety-filled time. Many people that I have known dread this sequence. The uncomfortable tests, irritating waiting and difficult discussions dissuade some from proper treatment. And yet, without the proper treatment, how will one get better?

Competitive intelligence is sometimes a similarly difficult topic for some businesses.

Competitive intelligence does three things that can be painful.

It forces an organization to look externally. Indeed, in my experience, most organizations admit that their focus is intensely inward. They are concerned about operations, execution and tactics. The more experienced people sheepishly concede that their balance is out-of-whack. The pain comes from admitting that they have been missing important information from the competitive environment.

It asks why an organization is getting the results it sees. Every company that I talk with wants to improve. Either they want to turnaround a mediocre (or failing) business or they want more growth. Hence, the management creates strategies to improve the results. Competitive intelligence methodically puts those strategy decisions in a competitive context. The pain comes from exposing the leaders’ decision-making thought processes.

It requires new approaches. Especially for companies that have not done competitive intelligence, starting CI will change them. The changes include new allocations of time, augmented strategy decision-making processes and a shift in the culture. These are not trivial changes. The pain comes from seeing that the solution requires long-term changes.

I suppose that there are other real and imagined barriers to competitive intelligence.

Commonly, people that recognize that there is a deficiency do not know where to start to improve. They need guidance and are unsure where they can get it. A lack of support within the organization sometimes stymies even motivated people. They feel that they do not have the latitude to begin competitive intelligence. I have also seen that there is a shock for some when confronted by the difference between what they are doing and what they might be doing (or their competitors are doing). Actions that follow shock are rarely bold. Rather, as with a serious medical diagnosis, the first reaction is often to become more conservative (i.e., avoid starting new things).

If any of this is true for you, your company or your clients, there are some common sense ways to decrease the fear.

A small-to-medium size business (SMB) is different from a large corporation in many ways (I don’t think that I am breaking any news by this statement). An SMB views the world differently.

Aside from the obvious facts that an SMB has smaller revenues, fewer people and (probably) a narrow product or service scope, there are other less obvious differences in strategy issues. Here are a five common strategy differences.

Strategy Responsibility: The responsibility for strategy is often shared among a small number of senior managers rather than vested in a named function (e.g., vice president of strategy). It is a part-time, diffuse task.

Strategy Definition: The company completes few formal strategy exercises. Emergent strategy is assigned much greater value. That is, strategy is “recognized” rather than prescribed.

Decision-Making: Decision-making speed is valued over reflection. Rapid adaptation and reaction are the currency of the day.

Internal Focus: Attention to the external environment is narrowed to match the SMBs near-term customers and prospects. There is less attention paid to broad trends, unexpected competitive threats and tangent opportunities.

All right, what about the SMBs that do think that strategy and competitive intelligence are (or might be) important? What is a feasible set of practices for them to initiate and sustain over time? For whatever stage of strategy and competitive intelligence maturity they find themselves, how do they move to the next stage?

Before talking about the stages, there are four meta-principles for SMB competitive intelligence practices.

Most of my career has been spent in a large, multinational technology conglomerate. There are challenges a plenty in that kind of business. Because of the variety of businesses, there are many strong and diverse competitors. Cultural issues are also prevalent as conducting business and selling in many countries is difficult. Then there are the expectations of investors. Well-prepared analysts review the company’s operations and ask pointed questions about future prospects. Within the company, there are entrenched constituencies with their own histories and subcultures. There often is a tendency to reduce profitable practices to predictable processes. Documentation, standards and overhead are prominent. All of this breeds a certain set of competitive habits and sensibilities.

There is another world that is quite different.

Lately, I have spent more time with small-to-medium size businesses. These companies have emerged from the start-up phase and may have revenues between $10M-$100M. Their issues are different from the conglomerates. Typically, the product line scope is narrower. The markets served are fewer. Access to capital is sometimes difficult. While some business processes are beginning to emerge, they remain less important than the leadership’s intuition. There is an ever-present sense of vulnerability to competitors. Employees are stretched to perform multiple roles. Documentation, standards and overhead are minimized whenever possible.

Though they are different from large companies, SMB’s face challenges that require an understanding of the competitive environment. Competitive intelligence is important for SMB leaders.

Commonly, there are five critical strategic imperatives for SMB’s. Competitive intelligence, properly tailored, provides value for each imperative.